Gérard Deltell
Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has been running the country for over a year now. My question is very simple: Where are the actual results for Canadians? Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. The GDP has contracted in three of the last four quarters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope this government will take the data from Statistics Canada and the budget into account. This past year, the deficit was twice as high as expected. The cost of living went up. Housing starts have declined since May.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, is being completely mismanaged. As a result, it has become a cakewalk for tax evaders to hack into the accounts of perfectly ordinary, honest people. Unfortunately, when people get hacked, it can takes months and months before the CRA can resolve their issues.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269 , which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre . One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He began by marking the 35th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to wish everyone in the Bloc Québécois a happy anniversary. Clearly, I am not about to debate the matter, but, since he quoted Lucien Bouchard, I would also like to quote him.”
“Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving.”
The complete record
Every one of 469 lines we hold for Gérard Deltell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“Should you agree, I am prepared to propose a motion to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for its deliberation.”
“Even if, in a world where anything is possible, the parliamentary secretary genuinely misspoke in his first response, the issue was clearly and specifically brought to his attention. Still, he responded by doubling down. It is clear that the parliamentary secretary knew full well what he was doing when he made such a calculated statement in the House of Commons, despite all the evidence to the contrary. [ English ] To sum up, the Liberal denial that Canada is in a recession was misleading, the parliamentary secretary making the claim was well positioned to know it was misleading, and his objective in making the comment was clearly to mislead the House in order to protect his fellow economist the Prime Minister . As such, I believe there is a prima facie case of privilege here.”
“The parliamentary secretary was rising in question period to stickhandle questions about that very day's economic headline, obviously an embarrassing story for the Liberals, whose very premise of forming the government was anchored in the supposed promise offered by the Prime Minister 's résumé. The parliamentary secretary was doing his best to defuse a political crisis for the Liberal Party leader . (1555) [ Translation ] Beyond that, I think it is also important to look at the additional exchange I had with the Liberal parliamentary secretary, in which I insisted on this point: “Is my colleague familiar with Statistics Canada? It just so happens that it is part of the Government of Canada. Statistics Canada states that Canada is in a recession”.”
“In fact, as a leading economist at a bank, he was used to frequently commenting on economic trends. For example, in an October 29, 2009, La Presses article about how 71% of Quebeckers are living in the past, the parliamentary secretary acknowledged that a recession is indeed defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction. He said, “It is a definition that is primarily used in the financial sector”. [ English ] Turning to the third part of the test, that the member must have intent to mislead the House in making the statement, one must look at the context of the exchange.”
“He is a serious guy. To be frank, that is why I was personally very disappointed and even surprised and saddened to see that this man of great experience unfortunately failed to recognize the facts. Before being elected as the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, the parliamentary secretary worked as the chief economist and chief strategist at Laurentian Bank Securities. He served as the Quebec finance minister and was appointed to the board of directors of the Bank of Canada by Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Freeland. In other words, this parliamentary secretary knew very well that two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction is the very definition of a recession. I believe that he was fully aware that he was not providing correct information when he denied that we are in a recession.”
“Of course, there is nothing technical about seniors who have to visit the food bank, unemployed Canadians fretting over how to make their next mortgage payments or hard-working parents worrying about how they will feed their kids next week. As for the second part of the three-part test, that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect, I think we should recognize that the individual making the statement was not just some parliamentary secretary who happened to be in town on Friday and was available during question period to read a note prepared by someone else, who knows nothing. [ Translation ] The parliamentary secretary, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin , is a highly respected economist. He served as finance minister for the Couillard government in Quebec and he balanced the budget.”
“In fact, he added insult to injury by saying, “Statistics Canada has never said that we are in a recession.” (1550) [ English ] I would respectfully submit that the parliamentary secretary has deliberately misled the House with his comments. To mislead the House intentionally is a well-recognized ground for contempt of Parliament. Our authorities, including paragraph 3.16 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , fourth edition, lay out a three-part test for establishing when a prima facie case of privilege can be found in such cases. First, the statement must, in fact, be misleading. As I just discussed, the Statistics Canada data quite clearly satisfy the consensus definition of when a country's economy has entered into recession.”
“I will put it simply: Canada is in a recession. This topic naturally raised concerns during question period on Friday. It will no doubt continue to do so in the coming days and weeks as we, the Conservatives, continue to put pressure on the Liberal government to submit a plan to get Canada out of this recession, which it is responsible for. In response to my questions about this recession, the parliamentary secretary replied, “Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: Canada is not in a recession.” To be honest, I was bewildered by the parliamentary secretary's refusal to acknowledge this reality and I asked him about this specific point. The Liberal parliamentary secretary maintained his position, replying, “Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: Canada is not in a recession.” The parliamentary secretary did not stop there.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a question of privilege regarding the misleading remarks made on Friday, during question period, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin . Friday morning, the government's statistics agency, Statistics Canada, released data on the gross domestic product, or GDP, for the first quarter of 2026, confirming that Canada's GDP had declined by 0.1%. That decrease follows a 1% contraction of economic output over the fourth quarter of 2025. The definition that economists generally accept is that there is a recession when there is negative GDP growth, that is, the economy has shrunk for two consecutive quarters. In reality, this is the third of the past four quarters to show such a contraction for the Canadian economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is all well and good, but the problem is that it is not working. One in three families is struggling to pay their mortgage every month. That is what the Liberal government has done to Canadians. Some 2.2 million Canadians are going to food banks every month. That is the way things are under the Liberal government and the economist turned Prime Minister . Some 112,000 jobs have been lost. Every country in the world is facing economic crises and threats from Mr. Trump, so why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the sad reality for Canadians is that Canada is in a recession. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. That is the reality. That is the result of Canada's Liberal Prime Minister , who was supposed to be an economic magician. In the end, it is not working. Why is the Liberal Prime Minister's Canada in a recession when the other G7 countries are not?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a misunderstanding. How can the parliamentary secretary say something that is in no way based in reality? Is my colleague familiar with Statistics Canada? It just so happens that it is part of the Government of Canada. Statistics Canada states that Canada is in a recession and that it is the only G7 country in this situation. While all G7 countries are facing the same challenges, Canada has the worst record and is the only country in a recession. How can the parliamentary secretary say the opposite of the truth? Canadians have had enough of this sort of lie.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canadians woke up this morning saddened to learn that Canada is the only G7 country to have been in a recession for the past year, despite the fact that the current government is led by what is said to be one of the world's most prestigious economists. The result is that Canada has the worst economic record in the G7. Furthermore, it has the highest food inflation of any G7 country. We also learned that one in three workers has to borrow money to buy groceries. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spent $190,000 on food during three trips. Earlier, the finance minister said that the government was tightening its belt. Is he proud of his Prime Minister?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the work he has been doing in the House for over a year now. Let us talk about the past year. For the past year, we have had a Liberal Prime Minister with a strong economic background. However, today, we learned that Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. Given everything the member said about how great and wonderful things are in Canada, how is that we are the only G7 country that is in a recession?”
“The people decided otherwise. That said, I have absolutely nothing against the current member from the Gaspé region, a former fellow journalist who truly stands out, and that is a good thing for Canadian democracy. This bill needs to move forward. We need to move forward to keep Canada in the loop when it comes to targeting and tracking down white collar criminals who do not pay their full taxes. We need to flush out these characters who, unfortunately, do not have the honour and dignity of paying what they owe and who invest tens of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to avoid paying what they owe the Canadian government. Canada needs this legislation to flush out criminals, be more transparent and get access to all the necessary information. That is why we obviously hope that the entire House will vote in favour of this bill.”
“That is what happened after 10 years of Liberal leadership at the Canada Revenue Agency. I would like to reiterate what the member for Simcoe North said to my government colleague earlier. He said that CRA employees should not be blamed for not being properly trained. Nor should the CRA itself be blamed for being badly mismanaged in recent years. Let us not forget that Prime Minister Trudeau put someone in charge for seven years who did not necessarily have sufficient experience in this field to provide strong leadership. I would like to commend and thank the current Prime Minister for firing this person from cabinet. I would also like to commend and thank the people of the Gaspé region for firing her from the House of Commons. Obviously, we would have preferred to see our candidate, Jean‑Pierre Pigeon, elected in that riding.”
“It is clear that these are not great times for the CRA. Just a few months ago, the Auditor General tabled a scathing report about poor management at the CRA. The report notes that there was a complete lack of leadership, with terrible results for all Canadians. Why would I say that? One reason is that people were waiting for ages when they called for information. Worse still, when information was provided, it was not always correct. Just imagine: People who cannot afford to pay a tax expert or an accountant to prepare their tax return for them pick up the phone, call CRA, talk to someone and get the wrong information one in five times. A few months later, CRA writes to let them know they made a mistake and owe $150, which they have to pay back right away because interest charges will keep adding up.”
“(1800) Allow me to recognize the perseverance of Senator Percy Downe who, for years, did the necessary work to push for this critical cause. It is thanks to him that we can debate it today. I also want to thank my colleague from Simcoe North for this. I want to note that my colleague served, in a different era, in better times for Canada, in Prime Minister Harper's government, in various ministers' offices, and he distinguished himself in a most inspiring way. I would like to think that, in a few years, three years at most, Canadians will honour us with their trust and the member for Simcoe North would do a great service to the Canadian government in cabinet. I am saying that he would make a good minister. Let us get back to the matter at hand. Yes, the Canada Revenue Agency absolutely must do its job.”
“It is also important to note that there are key points in each of the three stages. For example, earlier we talked about the shortfall. I will not deny that certain phrases sometimes sound better in French than in English. One thing, however, can be expressed equally in both languages. I was talking earlier about the minority government, which has since become a majority government because of the floor crossers. The term “floor crossers” is funny, is it not? I think “floor crossers” sounds just as good in French, for that it what they are. Getting back to the shortfall, some countries have handled that well, namely the United States, Great Britain, Turkey and Sweden. It is time for Canada to do the right thing so that everyone who is supposed to pay can do so properly. That is why it is essential that this bill pass.”
“The documents confirmed that several countries, including Canada, were indeed home to the scoundrels I mentioned earlier, whether companies or individuals. In total, 900 of them had flouted every possible law, and then some, to evade taxes. Some countries have taken the bull by the horns and achieved concrete results. In Australia, $44 million was recovered, compared with $87 million in Germany, $175 million in Spain and $25 million in Iceland. Canada, for its part, has recovered nothing. That is pretty weak. That is precisely why this bill must be passed. The CRA and anyone who cares about ensuring that everyone pays their fair share must be treated fairly. Being treated fairly means having to pay, and if a company does not pay, it should be seen as a bad guy who does not pay taxes. That is why it is important to do the right thing.”
“Now, we are doing it, and we are going to do it right. I will put on my glasses. I am going to do so often, because this whole subject is so technical that we need to get our facts straight. This bill has three objectives: to compile a list of all convictions for tax evasion, including international tax evasion; to require the CRA to include statistics on the tax gap in its annual reports every three years; and to require the minister to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with data on the tax gap. These three elements gripped the entire world when the Panama Papers scandal came to light. I am sure everyone remembers about ten years ago, when a consortium of investigative journalists unearthed what came to be known as the “Panama Papers”. They had unravelled a web of tax havens.”
“Some may be surprised that this is the third time this bill has been introduced and debated in the House, even though it is a no-brainer. As my Bloc Québécois colleague said earlier, the first time was under a majority government; the Liberals rejected it. That is part of public debate. There was then a sequence of three elections with minority governments. That meant there was not enough time to do the work properly. As a parliamentarian, I find that unfortunate, but let us remember that, from December 2024 to mid-December 2024 and then to mid-September 2025, over a nine-month period, the House sat for only five weeks. This was because of the change in government, the new Prime Minister's government, the elections and the summer recess. All of this prevented us from doing our parliamentary work.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill S‑217 . I am very pleased to see that the Bloc Québécois and the governing party are in agreement on this bill. Of course, we are the ones introducing it through the member for Simcoe North. This is not the first time that Bill S-217 , an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act with regard to reporting on unpaid income tax, has been before this House. Essentially, the purpose of this bill is to put more pressure on the CRA to track down the scoundrels who do not pay their taxes, especially those known as “white-collar criminals”, in other words, individuals or companies who refuse to pay taxes or who use loopholes and cook the books to avoid paying their taxes. We need to get to the bottom of things, and this bill does just that.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I must remind the Liberals that Liberal Canada is driving away investment. Let us remember that, when the Prime Minister was officially the chair of Brookfield, he moved the head office from Toronto to New York. Way to go. Let us do what he says, not what he does. The fact of the matter is that, according to Statistics Canada, $17 billion in investment went abroad in the first quarter. When will the Liberals start walking the talk and take meaningful action so that foreign investments are made here in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was in New York this morning on a trip described by the CBC as just a networking trip. Let us talk about investments. After 10 years of Liberal governance, Canada is considered to be the most restrictive country in the G7 for foreign investment. According to RBC, $1 trillion in investment has been lost over the past 10 years. The example comes from the top, as 91% of the Prime Minister's own assets are outside Canada. Does the Prime Minister know something that these people have yet to grasp?”
“More importantly, is my colleague aware that the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie was the Minister of Canadian Heritage when this government abolished the digital services tax? We, the Conservatives, saw no problem with that, but why pay tribute to a guy who was a senior minister for Canadian heritage and the environment, who held positions that differed from those of the Bloc Québécois?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for his point of view, which was very well defined, but which we obviously have reservations about. Still, we respect what is known as parliamentary democracy. At the end of his remarks, the member paid tribute to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie . I can understand that, now that he seems to be neutral, the Bloc Québécois is congratulating him. Is the member aware that when the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was a senior minister in this government, he voted for abolishing the carbon tax, for the throne speech that meant environmental projects would now have a single assessment and for Bill C‑5 , which enables the government to enter into agreements with Alberta, among others?”
“Madam Chair, I would like to say to everyone listening to us right now that not every cent they are paying in GST is going to federal services. It is paying down the interest on the debt that the man with a trillion-dollar debt has racked up over the last 10 years. I have one final question about the Quebec City region. When will the federal government provide the funding promised for the tramway?”
“Madam Chair, what a shame that the minister seems to have such a selective memory. Just 15 months ago, his predecessor said the deficit would be $31 billion. What is the deficit now? It is $68 billion. However, the good news is that the minister has eliminated the excise tax. That is a good thing. On the other hand, we wanted more. I can understand that, for a Liberal, eliminating a tax is a giant leap forward. For Canadian families, however, these are small steps. What we want is to go further. Why did the government put the brakes on tax cuts when it was off to a good start? We would have liked the government to follow our plan.”
“Madam Chair, the minister seems to forget that he was elected in 2015 on a promise to run three small deficits and achieve a zero deficit in 2019. He did none of that. On the contrary, even when the global economy was doing well, the government did not set any money aside. That would have been the right thing to do. However, the man with a trillion-dollar debt, that is one thousand billion dollars in debt, cannot tell us how much the interest on that debt costs. He talks about intergenerational investments. Does he realize that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for this government's debt and reckless deficits?”
“Madam Chair, it took the Liberal government's CRA a decade to do the right thing, which was a decade longer than it took Revenu Québec. The minister was elected at the same time as me, in 2015. The Prime Minister put him in cabinet almost immediately, which means that he has been one of the senior ministers in the Liberal administration for the past decade. That makes him one of the top architects of the debt that grew to over $1 trillion over that decade. Can the minister tell us what the interest on the debt costs Canada every year?”
“Madam Chair, I am going to start with a positive question. We are very pleased to see that the minister was able to reach an agreement with the City of Laval concerning the scandal over the Canada Revenue Agency, which had demanded $1 million from Laval taxpayers in connection with the former corrupt mayor. Ten years later than Revenu Québec, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, finally came to terms with the City of Laval. Why did the minister refuse to come testify before the committee for two and a half months?”
“Mr. Speaker, if all of these wonderful promises had worked, then Canadians would not be having such a hard time putting food on the table. That is what is happening after 10 years of rhetoric. The Liberals say nice things and claim that everything is fine, when Canadians are experiencing the exact opposite. One in four families is experiencing food insecurity. The cost of basics is rising for Canadian families. The price of housing has reached record highs. The cost of gas jumped 29%. That is what Canadians are experiencing every day. Will the Prime Minister understand that spending money that we do not have racks up debt for our children and fuels inflation?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important than having enough to eat. Unfortunately, Canadian families are struggling. Every month, 2.2 million Canadians are visiting food banks, one-third of them children. Food prices are rising twice as fast as inflation, and Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7. That is the result of 10 years of Liberal management. Will the Prime Minister finally put an end to his costly budgets so that Canadians can make ends meet?”
“Unfortunately, the government that was elected in 2015 on the promise that there would be no deficit in 2019 has thrown that promise away.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois applauding my colleague, who speaks impeccable French, with genuine enthusiasm. Incidentally, I urge everyone to read the biography he published a few months ago of our leader, the Leader of the Opposition . My colleague's question is essential and fundamental. When someone lives beyond their means, sooner or later, they have to pay for that spending. What does that lead to? It leads to debt, deficits and interest on the debt. We know that every penny of GST we pay is used solely to pay the interest on the debt. That is terrible. It is great for bankers but terrible for Canadians. That is why we need to adopt a responsible and realistic approach.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague; his questions are always pertinent. It is indeed a pity that the government, which has now been in office for over a year, has not gone to the trouble of engaging with the opposition parties, which is absolutely essential, particularly in the case of a minority government. That said, for the past few weeks, there has been talk of it being a majority government. It is a defector-led majority. It is a majority government made up of floor crossers. It is funny; I think it sounds quite good in both English and French.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, a year ago the government cancelled the carbon tax. I have to remind him that from 2015 to 2025, he spent all day long attacking those people who said that it was not very good to have a carbon tax. The Liberals said all the wrong things about that, but finally they recognized that was the right thing to do. The member is talking about the tax break that his government gave for 10¢ of taxe d'accise , as we are calling it in French. By the way, in 1979, we have to remember that under Joe Clark, the Progressive Conservative Party government applied this and said that we had to raise it to a level that was attacked by the Liberals at that time, but when they were back in power in 1980, they doubled that taxation. To the point about the taxe d'accise of 10¢—”
“The primary victims of this irresponsible immigration policy are the immigrants themselves, particularly those who have illegally made bogus asylum claims. We need to cut red tape, dial back the use of external consultants and leave more money in people's pockets by eliminating some taxes and lowering income tax. That is how we can deliver an economic recovery for all Canadians.”
“We should also get rid of some of the measures that create too much red tape, because there is no doubt that this directly affects us and stifles economic development. We must streamline bureaucracy and reduce our reliance on outside consultants. I mentioned that over the past 10 years, we have seen an increase of up to $20 billion. We see that the government has listened to us and reduced the amounts allocated for consultants, but it needs to go even further. We must also put an end to the tax loopholes that can arise from certain investments that are so difficult to understand that they ultimately become tax loopholes. We also need to review some of the benefits paid to bogus refugee claimants. Unfortunately, for 10 years, we had a government that took a completely irresponsible approach to immigration.”
“However, this government has been raising taxes for 10 years. Contrary to what the Liberals are going to say in a few moments when they ask me questions, it is important to point out that we were in agreement on the tax cuts. Small as they were, we supported them. We only wished they had been larger. That was the point of our suggestion. One of our suggestions is to leave more money in people's pockets by cutting taxes, which is what we wanted to do with the federal fuel tax, because it has a direct impact on everything. It affects people who travel, but the federal taxes on transportation and gasoline consumption also directly affect the price of goods and food that are transported.”
“It is also important to keep in mind that when there are taxes to pay, people end up with less money in their pockets. That is why our proposal was clear and positive for Canadians, because everyone is affected by the oil price hikes. We proposed temporarily suspending all federal gas taxes until December 31. We agreed on that proposal because it would have left $5 billion more in Canadians' pockets. However, the government accepted only a small portion of our suggestion, which involved removing the 10¢ per litre excise tax to give people a little break. Obviously, we had no objection to that, but it was barely a third of what we had suggested. Our approach as Conservatives is not so much to give people money as to let them keep more money in their pockets. The best way to let them keep more in their pockets is to cut taxes.”
“When taxpayers' money from the GST goes directly towards paying interest on the debt, we are propping up the banking system rather than the system we expect to support public services in Canada. What is the reality after 10 years? We have the worst food inflation in the G7. My colleagues should talk about this with people in their ridings, with families, with friends, with people they know well. Everyone is affected by food inflation. Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7. This is happening under the leadership of the world-renowned banker who has failed to keep his promises. We are still waiting for him to deliver on all the promises that were made and the major projects that are supposed to be carried out. Housing prices are skyrocketing across Canada, and families are the ones directly paying the price.”
“It should either hire more public servants to deliver more services and rely less on consultants, or rely more on consultants and make less use of the public service. If it is doing both at the same time, it is because the system is being mismanaged. That is what we have seen over the past 10 years. The reality and the impact of all this is that when we have to pay interest on the debt, as I mentioned earlier, the money is not going toward improving services. It is going toward paying for expenses were not covered previously. (1355) Who benefits most from this? The bankers do, because that is exactly how they make a living: from interest. We do not take issue with that. The issue is when interest levels are far too high and become astronomical.”
“A year and a half ago, under the former prime minister's watch, we were all outraged to learn that the deficit might be as high as $31 billion. Some people said that a $31‑billion deficit was insane. Now, a year later, it is twice as bad. The deficit now stands at $65 billion. As I was saying earlier, who would have thought the new Prime Minister could be worse than the old one? He doubled the deficit. It is also worth noting that direct spending on services has increased by 12.4% and that, over the past 10 years, 100,000 new public servants have been hired. At the same time, there has been a massive increase in outsourcing contracts for consultants. The government cannot do both at the same time.”
“Every family in Canada is spending an average of $3,400 just on interest payments. It is worth noting that a deficit means that the government is living beyond its means. It means that it is kicking the can down the road and not facing its responsibilities. Above all, it means that the government is acting irresponsibly toward our children, our grandchildren and even our great-grandchildren. Sooner or later, that debt will have to be paid. That is what happens with the interest on debt. When we pay, we are paying for the mistakes and mismanagement of the past. The worst legacy we can leave our children and grandchildren is a massive debt, massive interest and a chronic deficit. Speaking of deficits, it is quite extraordinary.”
“He is doing a worse job than the drama teacher, even though he is an internationally renowned banker who promised a bright future in terms of the management of public funds. As for the debt, it has been roughly $1 trillion for the past 10 years. Interest on the debt costs $58.7 billion. That is nearly $60 billion. For those watching at home, and even for me, when we are talking about billions of dollars, it is hard to picture what that actually means. It is important to understand that every penny we pay in GST is not going toward services from the federal government. It is not going toward having more doctors or more services. It is solely going toward paying the interest on the debt. That is right. Ten years of irresponsible Liberal governance has increased the debt by $1 trillion.”
“When the new Prime Minister took office a year ago, no one would have thought that we would end up where we are today, seeing as how he has an international reputation in public finance, served as the governor of the national banks of two G7 countries and is widely recognized for his business acumen. With this fresh energy, we might have expected a much more rigorous approach to managing public funds than the one taken by the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau, who failed to deliver on his promise of a zero deficit in his nine years in office. With the new Prime Minister, anything seemed possible. However, after a year under this new Prime Minister, the member for Nepean , it is quite the opposite.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Middlesex—London . We have reached this stage of the debate on the changes in Canada's financial situation. Let us remember that the Liberals have been in office and have been managing the public purse for over 10 years. Let us remember that most of the members on that side of the House who were elected in 2015 promised to run three small deficits and deliver a zero deficit in 2019. Obviously, that was not at all true because, in the past 11 years, the Liberal government has never kept that promise to balance the budget. It has done exactly the opposite.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us remember that a year ago, the Liberals were forecasting a $31‑billion deficit. One year later, it is twice that—$65 billion. That is the reality after one year of Liberal governance. Worse still, the outlook from now to 2031, according to the economic statement, is another trillion dollars added to the debt. More and more spending is an indication that the deficits will increase. Do the Liberals realize that spending money we do not have leaves our children and our great-grandchildren holding the bag and that future generations will have to pay for the Liberals' irresponsible management?”